|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?
The French can do whatever they want, and people in French churches can make their own decisions about whether and how to make the language they use inclusive of women. These are very context-specific decisions, so as an English speaker and an American I would not presume to suggest to the French would they should do. If Frenchwomen feel excluded by the liturgical language they hear in church, then they are, thank goodness, free to protest and to suggest changes. But whether or not the French choose to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun has absolutely no bearing on whether "men" means "women too" in English--it just doesn't.
[ 06. June 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
I believe if you'll go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did. In fact you'll also find I said absolutely nothing about whether "man" includes or excludes women.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Using Star Trek as an example of how "men" can be gender-inclusive is nonsensical.
Not really. The idea of using a masculine pronoun as a generic pronoun is arguably sexist, especially in a language that doesn't have the widespread gender inflections that the Romance languages do. And as you pointed out, Star Trek was indeed sexist--as were the times in general. I'm not arguing with the idea that "men" is a bad choice for an inclusive plural, only that it has only been relatively recently recognized as a bad choice.
BTW, ken, I think that you are right in "man" stopped being a colloquial generic pronoun, but, AFAIK, it is only relatively recently that it stopped being formally correct as well.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The examples, which some will know well, of man and men, and he and him being used as genuinely inclusive terms strike us as comic today. 'In the beginning God had but one pair of men in Paradise.' Or the famous paper on 'The development of the uterus in the guinea pig, the horse, and man.' Or something that goes like 'As the typical Londoner gets dressed in the morning, pulling on his tights and wriggling into his dress...'
I like to wonder, if Tereshkova had gone before Gagarin, whether she would have been described as the first man in space. If it had happened in the 1460s she might have been. In 1960s, no way.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
Question for those opposed to inclusive language: what, apart from aesthetics, have you got to lose?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totallty disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I like to wonder, if Tereshkova had gone before Gagarin, whether she would have been described as the first man in space. If it had happened in the 1460s she might have been. In 1960s, no way.
True. OTOH, if you are talking about a hypothetical person, it still would have been acceptable in the 1960s to use "he" rather than "he or she." Today, we would all but have to use "he or she," "one", use plural forms so that "they" could be used, or to state explicitly that one was going to use "he" as a generic pronoun or alternate between "he" and "she."
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I am just trying to show how forced and sometimes ridiculous some of the arguments are. Obviously, I wasn't communicating well.
Yeah, I suspected that you were trying to make the argument look ridiculous, but I don't think it is. I suspect that we'll have to leave it at that. You could call me to Hell, of course, but I have no interest in going there.
As far as the French are concerned, they can do what they want. If you don't believe that language has an effect on the way people think, I can tell you a story about taking a beginning Italian class which was almost entirely populated with Francophone Belgians who got mightily exercised when the gender of some noun in Italian differed from the gender in French (being two Latin languages, the genders are very often the same). Sit in on a class where people are trying to insist for 45 minutes that a car[1] is feminine and can't possibly be masculine in any language because cars are "feminine" things. Then tell me that language doesn't shape the way a person thinks.
[1] Actually "automobile" is feminine in both languages, but I can't think of an example of where the gender differs between Italian and French at the moment.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
In the olden days (not any more nowadays) the favorite U.S. reductio ad absurdum against inclusive language went something like this:
"I think I shall go out to my person-box to see if the person-person has brought me any person today."
But in actual practice, all one need say is of course "I think I shall go out to my mailbox to see if the mail-carrier has brought me any mail today."
Over the years, one remains sensitive, while learning to eschew over-sensitivity.
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
In the olden days (not any more nowadays) the favorite U.S. reductio ad absurdum against inclusive language went something like this:
"I think I shall go out to my person-box to see if the person-person has brought me any person today."
But in actual practice, all one need say is of course "I think I shall go out to my mailbox to see if the mail-carrier has brought me any mail today."
Over the years, one remains sensitive, while learning to eschew over-sensitivity.
Leetle M.
Although I know this view is supportive, I'd like to start at the beginning here. My original statement was along the lines of "Let's use the word 'humanity' as it is commonly understood to include both men and women whereas the term 'mankind' is no longer commonly understood to be inclusive and is understood by many to be sexist".
The reply, which is totally illogical to me, was "You can't use the word 'humanity' because it has 'man' in it." This is supposed to make my view look ridiculous?
I never said I was offended by the masculine. I never said I wanted to obliterate the letter-sequence m-a-n. I never said that I wanted to get rid of the the words 'man', 'male', or even more ridiculously 'mail'. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) It's very telling what people infer.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!
Sorry!
Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo (emphasis mine):
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totally disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
I am struck by that word, I think that is probably how I feel about the use of men and man, not excluded but disengaged. It is only speaking to me at one remove, while I guess for most men it is speaking directly to them. As I feel it is still speaking to me I do not feel excluded.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."
Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.
quote:
Ariel said:
Well a) it does look rather old-fashioned and b) it comes across as patriarchal which are two reasons why people don't go to church as often as they used to.
Ha! If that were true all these churches that have "inclusive" hymns and say "for us and our salvation" would be PACKED.
On the contrary, the "liberal" mainline churches that fiddle with the words to make themselves "inviting and inclusive" seem to be the ones hemorrhaging members.
The mega-Bible-churches that are growing by leaps and bounds seem to be quite straightforward in their maintenance of male-headship doctrines.
How does that work?
And ken says that "men" isn't used in "everyday" speech to refer to men and women. Well, gee. In "everyday" speech we don't tend to think that saying a few pretty words over a water biscuit makes a "sacrifice" anymore than we talk about a "Paraclete." Why should church be like "everyday" life?
I've said before that I think it's astonishing that one can imagine that someone new to Christianity has a shot at grasping the operation of the Holy Communion or comprehending the mystery of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, but these same people are too stupid to figure out that "for us men and our salvation" doesn't mean that 80% of the congregation are unsaved.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
Or 4. a woman who prefers traditional language over inclusive language. Not all women want the same thing at the same time--another lesson from feminism.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!
Sorry!
Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....
Gosh, Leetle M. No. You didn't get anything wrong. Sorry, I knew your post was supposed to be supportive.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
It just seemed to me that the "male" "mail" thing was exactly the sort of argument I was being told I was using when I wasn't doing anything of the sort.
Forgive me for taking advantage of your supportive post to make a point. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
As Ken has said, French has grammatical gender, which happens in part to correspond to natural gender. English however has natural gender. Some languages have grammatical gender that does not correspond at all to natural gender (Kiswahili is an example of this - conventionally it is said to have noun classes but they work exactly like grammatical gender). Speakers of these languages find it hard to use "he" and "she" correctly, which is very confusing for native English speakers. Speakers of languages like French that have grammatical gender that does, in part, correspond to natural gender, find mistakes made by foreigners in gender confusing. Speakers of different languages process gender differently. Not too surprising, really.
Liturgy has changed over the centuries: either it changed once in 1662 for you, or it has changed several times since then. I don't see what was so special about 1662 - one assumes that the BCP was intended to reflect language usage of the time, since people had stopped speaking Latin, so I don't see why we should not have (poetic, well-written) liturgy in language of our time.
Hymns change less, but many of them have been translated, again presumably into poetic but contemporary language, and many of them have also been changed to become more comprehensible. They are not the same as poetry (which also gets translated into modern English, on occasion - e.g. Beowulf), but we still change things that can be drastically misunderstood, as singing is participatory in the way that poetry is not.
HT, I wonder if you have actually asked any of your fellow parishioners whether they feel that "men" refers to them? For all you know, they are standing there replacing "men" with "girls" like HoosierNan.
[ 06. June 2005, 21:37: Message edited by: chukovsky ]
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Further to what chukovski wrote, I remember several years ago talking to a (male) friends and his female co-worker with their church's youth program. This was in the UK. We were talking about inclusive language, recognizing that the situation was not the same in our two conutnries, and to make his point, he turned to here and said words to the effect that "you're not bothered by all that, are you". He was gobsmacked when she replied that "Yes I am -- there's just no point in mentioning it."
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Several people have called you on this, and as you haven't responded yet, I'll do it again.
G'day Steve, sorry, I was on Oz time which means I needed my beauty sleep; not something that anyone lightly calls on me to miss.
quote:
Since you object to having your identity as a man subsumed under the umbrella of "person", can you not appreciate that a woman has as much and even more reason to object to having her identity subsumed under the umbrella of "man".
Sure, I do see the objection, and if I was a woman and felt that this was the underlying intention of the language being used, I would register that objection.
However—and this is especially so given the history of the English language—using the word "man" to describe "men and women" may be occurring for a range of reasons, and quite possibly none of them to do with sexism. I still occasionally visit churches where people say "for us men and for our salvation"—including the women (similar to the point made by Hooker's Trick). Although I haven't gone 'round checking after each meeting, I am almost certain that the women who join in saying "for us men and for our salvation" believe themselves to be included in that salvation, and that they would laugh to scorn any suggestion that they weren't*. If I happen to say in a sermon that "Mankind are responsible for extraordinary displays of sinfulness and ignorance", I have never yet been picked up for non-inclusive language—people seem to have rightly assumed that I am talking about everyone.
*On the odd occasion, they might not laugh. In fact, with enough coaching some might come to believe that the intention really was to exclude them, despite the evidence of their eyes and ears. But one of my complaints against some types of feminism would be that it asks men and women to take offense where none was intended, on grounds that have been asserted rather than argued for.
When I meet someone from a different cultural or ideological background, and they use words in a slightly different way from me, I normally don't assume first off that they are doing so in order to offend me or people like me. If I am offended, I am generally straightforward enough in my way of speaking to ask the person if offence was intended. This is generally enough to clarify what is going on, without me requiring them to change their way of speaking as well.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Some random musings about gender and language.
I like Spiffy's new gender-neutral pronoun, "em," but I know it's not likely to cath on widely. Although languages change, pronouns change very, very slowly, far more slowly than other words. But there is clearly a felt need here for some other word -- Littlest One was saying yesterday that he'd like to have a word to refer to beings who don't have a gender, or when you don't know the gender. He doesn't like referring to God and the angels as "he." He knows that's not quite right, but our language as it stands doesn't offer an appropriate alternative.
When Eldest Son was in preschool, he coined the word "shiz" to use as a singular possessive pronoun. I rather liked it.
But I know that language in conservative fields, such as law and religion, changes more slowly than language in common use. Law relies on precedent, religion (for some of us, anyway) relies on long-established consensus. In legal documents, my sister is the executrix of our father's estate. In common usage, she's the executor.
That's because, in common usage, feminine-specific forms are all but dead. You can't refer to a woman as an aviatrix or a poetess with a straight face. Those words are obsolete.
As feminine forms have become obsolete, masculine forms have come to be considered gender-neutral. My grandmother received a mistress of arts degree. I received a master of arts, and never thought for a second that there was anything odd about it, at all. There must have been a transitional time when neither choice seemed quite right, when awarding a woman a master's degree seemed to deny or exclude, while a mistress's degree seemed to patronize.
I think we're still in that transitional time with respect to gender and language. Some things are still unsettled. I would have expected "man" and "mankind" to be accepted as gender-neutral, as other formerly masculine words have been, but that's not the way things seem to be going. I'm not sure why.
But in the mean time, until this phase of linguistic change is complete, it seems to me good to assume that, whatever word choice someone else has made, they mean well, unless you have other evidence to the contrary.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Gordon - the point is not that churchgoers think the liturgy was written deliberately to exclude them. The point is that churchgoers do not normally themselves use these words to include themselves, and so it jars when they are asked to use the words as part of a church service.
Although in some cases I have my suspicions about the intentions of the liturgy- and hymn-writers (like the ordination hymn described above).
And we're still waiting to hear what exactly you reject about feminism.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
On the contrary, the "liberal" mainline churches that fiddle with the words to make themselves "inviting and inclusive" seem to be the ones hemorrhaging members.
The mega-Bible-churches that are growing by leaps and bounds seem to be quite straightforward in their maintenance of male-headship doctrines.
I don't buy it. The liberal mainline churches aren't declining because they are using inclusive language. Their problems are many, but that isn't one of them.
I have never even heard of the "mega-Bible-churches" insisting on male headship.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
What about other ways to be more inclusive which don't involve "men" v. "humanity" or gender pronoun issues?
For example, instead of "The God of Abraham and Isaac," why not say "The God of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca"? Obviously, this can't be done when things need to scan, but they can certainly be included in the spoken part of the liturgy.
What was fascinating to me (on a number of levels) was that when we added precisely that language to BCP Eucharistic Prayer C (ECUSA), a member of the congregation objected strenuously because it wasn't "BIBLICAL." After a half-hour conversation spent ascertaining that he really was objecting on those grounds, not because we were making changes to the approved text, I was left wondering where exactly he thought we got their names. (BTW, we had received the Bishop's approval for the addition).
What about the pronoun "one" - as in "Blessed is one who...." as opposed to "Blessed is he/she who....."?
While I think we should use inclusive language, I also think we should try to use it well - which is ultimately going to take a lot more effort that swapping a few pronouns around.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But one of my complaints against some types of feminism would be that it asks men and women to take offense where none was intended, on grounds that have been asserted rather than argued for.
Offense may be given without having been consciously intended. It's courteous to change one's ways or speech accordingly when this is the case. If people are offended, they're offended--they are not required to mount an argument in defense of their feelings.
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
What about the pronoun "one" - as in "Blessed is one who...." as opposed to "Blessed is he/she who....."?
This is probably best handled by the plural, i.e. "Blessed are they who . . . ."
"Blessed is one who" seems a bit stilted, and "Blessed is he/she who....." sounds positively awful.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
And we're still waiting to hear what exactly you reject about feminism.
I don't reject feminism out of hand. There are all sorts of elements of feminism I would endorse.
Some examples. At Melbourne University, where I worked for more than ten years, I believe the women's college "Janet Clarke Hall" was started by evangelical Christian women in the 19th century to help in the training and teaching of women. That's just one example of evangelicals doing something practical to improve the situation of women. Catherine Hamlin's fistula hospital in Addis Ababa would be another random example of evangelicals —and frequently, evangelical women—working to improve the status of women.
But you asked what I rejected about feminism. I think I would reject the idea held and taught by some feminists that patriarchy is of necessity and by definition oppressive. There may be other consequences of this view that I would also take exception to, on a case by case basis.
As I've said, though, a lot of the other practical positive outworkings of feminism would be good and worthy of support and promotion by evangelical Christians—indeed, have been supported and promoted by evangelical Christians.
That's a bit off topic, but I'm trying to give you a sense of how I would answer. On topic, I am not persuaded by the reforms of language that are insisted upon by some feminists, so therefore I haven't reformed my way of speaking to any great extent. Still, it would be silly to do something if you weren't persuaded it was a good idea, wouldn't it?
[ 06. June 2005, 22:16: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
So if someone is not persuaded that calling me "sweetie" at work is a bad idea, despite the fact that they barely know me and I have asked them not to do so, they are justified in persisting in their discourtesy? My feelings on the subject just don't count?
[ 06. June 2005, 22:20: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Ruth, pre or post language reform, it would never occur to me to call you "dear" or "honey"; or any woman for that matter. But if someone asked me to change my way of speaking on grounds of courtesy and at a personal level, all things being equal, I would.
On the other hand, if I was addressing the issue on a public bulletin board, I might suggest on that bulletin board that there were other ways of viewing the situation rather than being offended by it—not the specific example you raise, but a number of the others.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Ruth, pre or post language reform, it would never occur to me to call you "dear" or "honey"; or any woman for that matter. But if someone asked me to change my way of speaking on grounds of courtesy and at a personal level, all things being equal, I would.
On the other hand, if I was addressing the issue on a public bulletin board, I might suggest on that bulletin board that there were other ways of viewing the situation rather than being offended by it—not the specific example you raise, but a number of the others.
Like what?
And are we simply to decide we are not offended when in fact we are? My response to "us men and our salvation" is no less visceral than my response to being called "sweetie" by someone who is almost a stranger to me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Gordon, you seem to be happy to retreat from any of your opinions when challenged on them, so I'll have a go at your claim that patriarchy is not necessarily and by definition oppressive.
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
HT, I wonder if you have actually asked any of your fellow parishioners whether they feel that "men" refers to them? For all you know, they are standing there replacing "men" with "girls" like HoosierNan.
Funnily enough, I have not actually gone round to the fairer members of my congregation and inquired if they, like HoosierNan, replace words of the liturgy. However, ours is a large and growing parish, so presumably any ladies who objected to "for us men and our salvation" would go to another parish.
quote:
JJ Ramsey said
I don't buy it. The liberal mainline churches aren't declining because they are using inclusive language. Their problems are many, but that isn't one of them.
Um, that's not what I'm saying. Ariel said no one goes to church anymore because the churches are patriarchal (and we know this because we say "goodwill toward men"). If that's really true, then wouldn't people FLOCK back to churches that said "goodwill toward people?"
quote:
I have never even heard of the "mega-Bible-churches" insisting on male headship.
I will readily admit that this is an area in which I have little experience, but I wonder if you can find me some mega-bible-churches that have lady pastors?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Melon, way back on the first page, opined: quote:
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
I don't agree with this at all, specifically relating to the use of man, men, mankind. You go into a girls' school and you will find huge resistance to the idea that they can be subsumed into the general man, men, mankind. As you say, they will say what they want to say, and it isn't that they are men, even grammatically.
Our school choir sang at the Women's Convention that was held over the weekend. They found it fascinating, and it was equally fascinating listening to them talk about what they'd heard. And I was encouraged to hear them deciding that they might be feminists, since feminism included some hugely successful older women, and some very forthright younger women.
Language shapes the way we think. My boss, who is very hot on gender inclusive language, writes his reports using his or her and she or he entirely interchangeably.
One of the traps you find in early medical textbooks, for instance, is the the doctor is always referred to as male, and the patient, unless it is a text on male-specific problems, is almost always female. Some older doctors of my acquaintance still think like this. If you are sick you are in a subordinate position, the position of the woman. It affects the way they think about, talk to, and treat patients.
And this is so much more true of the church, where there is still strong resistance, over the church global, to women in positions of leadership. Inclusive language is a tiny step, and if you've read it badly done, then you haven't been creative enough!
Tangent: In the case of Dear Lord and Father, I prefer the words by Timothy Hurd for the same tune, which start "God comes to us as one unknown".
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gordon, you seem to be happy to retreat from any of your opinions when challenged on them
I'd be surprised if you could find one example of me doing that on this thread?
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
RuthW: Unlike your examples of "dear", "honey" and "sweetie" (which are not examples of gender exclusive language, but examples of the language of endearment inappropriately applied), your example of "for us men and for our salvation" is actually an example where a person's feeling offended is not in and of itself sufficient reason to change the language.
If it was sufficient, then I could argue that I would be offended by the language being changed, and that would be sufficient to retain traditional usage. I think you'd agree that me being offended in such a situation would not be enough to override the need for change. So 'being offended' is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned. At this point I agree with John Cleese: "You do not have the right not to be offended".
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
The right to power is irrelevant. There is power. Who decides what job someone will do? Whom they will marry? How they will dress, spend their time? The right to make decisions of this sort, the power to do so, will be exercised by someone. In a patriarchal society it will be exercised by men but not women. That is what patriarchal means. It is clearly oppressive.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
From Gordon:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
I want to be very sure I'm not misinterpreting your point, Gordon. Are you saying that Christian patriarchies are not oppressive because they are divinely ordained? That while no one has an innate right to power to rule over others, God has invested that right in men?*
*by which I mean "male," lest there be any misunderstanding.
[ 06. June 2005, 23:50: Message edited by: Sienna ]
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.
Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's because, in common usage, feminine-specific forms are all but dead. You can't refer to a woman as an aviatrix or a poetess with a straight face. Those words are obsolete.
Those words are, but as the quote from hatless points out, other words have been created because women felt excluded. As a teenager, reading the Chalet School books, I disliked the fact that Jo was often referred to as an `authoress' because I felt that it demeaned her -- she was seen as not being as good as an man who was an author. Thus, then I agreed with your point. Now however, (having learnt various languages which are gendered (although in the case of the one in which I am most fluent -- Welsh -- the gendering is not that strong)), I understand that it wasn't the case that Elinor M. Brent-Dyer was demeaning Jo (and by implication herself as an authoress) but recognising that author is a masculine form of a word and so logically, because she is a woman she should be an authoress. I suspect the fact that deaconesses were not merely female deacons influenced the fact that I found the -ess suffice demeaning! I consciously call myself a myfyfwraig `female student' rather than a myfyriwr a (male) student when speaking Welsh, because I am a woman!
What intrigues me is the way in which the -or suffice has come to be seen as gender-neutral (and so feminine forms as demeaning) but at the same time, the -man suffice (which could be said to be gender-neutral as man has the sense 'man-not-animal') has come to be seen as exclusively male and so we have to talk of chairwomen.
Cricket, however, throws up an interesting one. I remember a discussion at a match 4 or 5 years ago, when the (male) umpire (who was probably retired) asked us whether we wanted to be called batsmen or batswomen. The unanimous opinion was batsmen. My reasoning was that calling us something different from the men implied that we weren't equal to them (so more like my reaction to authoress). In the case of twelfth man,* twelfth woman merely sounds ridiculous!
Secondly `us men and our salvation':
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.
Calling it a mistranslation is not entirely fair. In 16th century English, I would argue that it was a valid use of 'men' in the plural of the 'man-not-animal' sense.** What I really object to is the fact that rather than replacing the bad translation with say 'humans' modern versions have omitted the word entirely which is a worse mistranslation and leads to potentially more exclusive readings (as I and Mousethief have already argued) because whilst a woman saying the creed is included by having said 'us', one could read `us' in a very narrow way (and excluding those not saying the creed), when the creed-writers meant the whole human race!
Thirdly, a couple of random comments about examples which have been thrown in:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
with the intro from Star Trek: The Next Generation,
quote:
to boldly go where no one has gone before
This `updating' has always bugged me. If they're going where no-one has gone before then how come they meet people (in a loose sense -- humanoids!)? My first thought was `why didn't they change man to humans' but then I thought well, the crew is mixed species so actually what they mean is 'where no member of the Federation has been before'!
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
I actually like this. It means that you can be explicit about excluding men (because elles says the group is all female) but you can't exclude women because all ils says is that there is at least one man!
Fourthly, exclusion by she/her (which follows from the last in some ways:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totallty disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
Actually, I think that what you felt is probably stronger than what most women feel in Church. When I read something where she is used as the generic pronoun, I notice and my first thought is that the person has presumed an all female situation in some ways. He has a history as a generic pronoun in a way that she (currently at least) doesn't and so she makes far more of a point.
Carys
*Cricket does not allow substitutes in the way that most sports do, but if a fielder is injured they can be replaced in the field but the replacement cannot bowl. Nor can they bat in the other innings -- an injured batsmen either retires hurt or has a runner (i.e. they still hit the ball but someone else runs between the wickets on their behalf). Teams will generally have a 'twelfth man' who will be a spare fielder and also do stuff like take drinks, or replacement gloves, bats etc onto the pitch.
**I will admit that as I general rule, I can see man as generic (as in mankind) but struggle more with being included in men, but the 'us' in the creed makes it clear (to me at least) that this includes me (or how could I say us?). Similarly I'm glad that `fellow men' in the confession has become (even in CW Order 1 Traditional language) `neighbours' although again, the fellow meant that I knew it must include me.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The right to power is irrelevant. There is power. Who decides what job someone will do? Whom they will marry? How they will dress, spend their time? The right to make decisions of this sort, the power to do so, will be exercised by someone. In a patriarchal society it will be exercised by men but not women. That is what patriarchal means. It is clearly oppressive.
I rather think you assume what you are trying to prove. When God exercises his divinely-ordained power to determine our times and places (Acts 17:26), is he being oppressive? What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I want to be very sure I'm not misinterpreting your point, Gordon. Are you saying that Christian patriarchies are not oppressive because they are divinely ordained? That while no one has an innate right to power to rule over others, God has invested that right in men?
There are several separate questions here. I am not even sure what you mean by "Christian patriarchy". Patriarchies may be oppressive, indeed Genesis 3:16b suggests that the normal order of things in a fallen world will be that men seek to oppress women, and women seek to oppress men, but that men generally win. (I'm not saying this is good, I'm just observing what the Bible spells out as one consequence of sin). The problem is with sin, not patriarchy.
I'm not convinced that the Bible mandates or even endorses patriarchy, just that it doesn't disendorse it. and certainly I find no biblical support for the proposition that patriarchy is necessarily and inherently oppressive. This proposition seems to be an underlying assumption of many forms of contemporary feminism, and I reject it.
Hosts: I'm not trying to wander off topic, I'm attempting to answer questions that are put to me. Please let me know if you want me to desist!
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.
Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?
It's just the same as hymns. Titles and names put words into other people's mouths. How I hate the margarine that calls itself 'I can't believe it's not butter.' I can't refer to it like that without advertising it to myself!
I wouldn't refer to a woman as a chairman any more than I would call a black person a darkie, whatever they told me they preferred.
The term manageress is interesting, because it ought to parallel manager, but in practice is only used of women who run canteens or shops. A female bank manager (now that we have them) would never be called a manageress.
((Incidentally, I originally wrote about a woman bank manager. This is a familiar construction: woman minister, woman doctor, but is never used the other way round. You never hear of a man minister, or men doctors. It bothers me. Is the claim that there are female ministers too radical, because it suggests that minister might be female, rather than just claiming that women can be (masculine stand in) ministers?))
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.
I'm sure that you are not suggesting that because I say "for us men and our salvation" in church that I think women are unsaved or secondary in God's salvific grace?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
You'll have to explain that. To me it's obvious that if someone exercises power over another person they are being oppressive. Patriarchy is men arrogating power that might otherwise be exercised by women. Please explain.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
You'll have to explain that. To me it's obvious that if someone exercises power over another person they are being oppressive. Patriarchy is men arrogating power that might otherwise be exercised by women. Please explain.
Oh, sure—but I thought my example of God exercising power over us showed that there is no inherent oppression in the exercise of power.
But let me give another example. My four year old would run our house, if we allowed her to do so. The main obstacles at the moment to this occurring are my two year old and my six year old, who harbour their own ambitions.
Furthermore, be in no doubt as to my four year old's capacity and capability to rule. "I want icecream, now!" "I want to watch TV, now!". Most of the time, her wishes don't threaten her life or wellbeing in any appreciable way. Sometimes, we give her what she wants. In years to come, we may altogether cease to resist her will. But that we use our power to resist at this time does not (I believe) constitute a form of oppression.
Of course, you will respond that the dynamics of a parent-child relationship are quite different from those of a husband-wife relationship, or from a government-society relationship. I agree. I am making a far more specific point: that the exercise of power need not of necessity imply oppression, no matter how much outrage is generated by the one whose will is frustrated.
Your point is that patriarchy is always oppressive. I understand this point, but it still needs to be argued for; what's more I've given you at least two counter-examples from analogus situations that suggest exceptions to your rule.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
This thread would make no sense at all without the underlying understanding by nearly all posters that women have been (and frequently still are) seen as inferior to men. One would think that alone would be enough to make the opponents of inclusive language change their minds. Apparently not.
And women are stupid or malicious if they don't "understand" they're included. "Of course you're saved, honey. How could you doubt it? Now run along and get the coffee made for the coffee hour, would you?" Certainly no mixed message in the church like there so frequently are in real life, as it were.
But what's puzzling me is this: it's all about allocation of resources. That's the point of power. So you can be sure you've got your share and them some of food, water and shelter from the elements. But what is the power in a church situation that is being threatened by inclusive language? Do some fear there is only so much salvation to go around? Because they are very obviously being threatened. I'm just not sure I understand in what way.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
well - I think to a certain extent we *do* opress our children. But this is acecptable, we limit their freedom because they are children and we know one day they will grow up to be adults.
Using that argument can justify "oppression" or "seperate but equal" of blacks and whites... I dont see the difference between that and "oppression" or "seperate but equal of male/female.
Saying there is something *inately* wrong/different about women that they arent capable (ie childlike/ lesser brain/ made differently/whatever) is similar to the *inately* differentness used to justify segregation.
bad and wrong
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But what is the power in a church situation that is being threatened by inclusive language? Do some fear there is only so much salvation to go around?
The answer to your second question is "no". The answer to the first question is "possibly none". But on the other hand, those arguing for inclusive language sometimes suggest that men and women should share equal power. As I don't believe this to be the case, I tend to avoid inclusive language.
I think both sides of this discussion would probably feel that their language should reflect their theological assumptions, without necessarily feeling obliged to impute nasty motives to those who hold another view from their own.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.
I'm sure that you are not suggesting that because I say "for us men and our salvation" in church that I think women are unsaved or secondary in God's salvific grace?
Not you personally, no. But you don't have to go very far backwards into Christian history to find examples of writers who thought exactly that. You don't have to go back at all, really, there are people who behave and speak as though this is the case right now.
Calvin, to take my favourite example, treats all the strong women in the bible as though God only uses them to shame men. Calvin doesn't see any woman (except Mary the mother of Jesus) as anything near as human as a man. His twisting logic supplies an almost funny exegesis of the story of Deborah, for instance. She is told off by Calvin for usurping men's place. He cannot see any good reason for her role except that "the men of the time" were weak and thus needed the rebuke of a woman in charge.
Calvin had an undeniable influence on the Protestant churches well into the last century. It is that history and others like it which make women like me very wary of any use of the word "men". It doesn't mean that anyone who uses it is automatically antiwomen. However, those who argue that it must remain I tend to view with some suspicion, whether they are women or men.
And I hold to my point about the current teenage generation - the young women are not going to accept the use of "men" for themselves as they grow up.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon, I'm not sure what a Christian patricharchy would be, either, which is why I was confused about your point. It seemed like you might be saying that patriarchies were okay because God had set things up that way - thanks for the clarification.
I think the reason your example of God's absolute, loving power over creation as an illustration that power over others isn't inherently wrong is not entirely helpful because:
1. it's not one that's found in intra-personal relations, much less in societies/governments; and
2. is based on relations between God Almighty and lowly humans, not how we relate to one another. It's sort of like discussing the power relationship between me and a bug crawling across the floor and comparing it to the power relationship between me and my husband, only the extent of God's superiority to me is far greater than mine to the bug. I don't believe we do have "rights" with respect to God, only the grace we receive, but I do believe we have rights with respect to one another - and it's those rights that are relevant to the patriarchy discussion.
However, in an effort to bring this back on topic (although I think we always end up on the patriarchy tangent because it's difficult to discuss why gender inclusive language is important without exploring those related issues):
If "offense" isn't enough reason to change language, what about a sense of exclusion, or an inability to connect to the Gospel message? Because while I personally don't feel that sense of distancing or exclusion from non-inclusive language, many, many women do.
If adding "and Sarah" after "The God of Abraham" or saying "Blessed are they" or "blessed is one" instead of "blessed is he" during the Eucharistic Prayer helps change that, why shouldn't we change our language? I can't see any great truth we're losing in those changes, or any doctrine that's been violated. If it helps those who struggle without violating Scripture or doctrine, isn't that what we should be doing?
ETA: and what Sine said.
[ 07. June 2005, 01:49: Message edited by: Sienna ]
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
those arguing for inclusive language sometimes suggest that men and women should share equal power. As I don't believe this to be the case, I tend to avoid inclusive language.
I should think you would. And rightly so, from your point of view. Language is powerful. Magic, in fact.
quote:
I think both sides of this discussion would probably feel that their language should reflect their theological assumptions, without necessarily feeling obliged to impute nasty motives to those who hold another view from their own.
"Nasty"? Your word, not mine. Guilty conscience, Gordon? But if it's not about power, and power isn't about allocation of resources, I wish you'd tell me what you do think it's about?
I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Gordon --
I guess I'm the first Host to read your request. As a Host, I see no problems with what you have been posting. You are all keeping your tempers, and as long as that continues, all is well.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church ![[Biased]](wink.gif) only human beings have been saying the creed.
That way, we could get around the whole "men" issue without making a problem. (Unless, of course, there is concern that plants, animals, viruses, minerals, and elements might also be saved, and therefore we must be SURE to say it is only humans! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.
Far be it from me to intentionally kill a conversation, Sine—a clunky faux pas indeed.
"Power" is one of those "boo" words that as soon as a man lays claim to it, that man has automatically sided with the oppressor. Whereas I keep trying to say that the exercise of power may or may not be oppressive. Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.
I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." *snip*
Well just do it, edit your data projector or Order of Service word processor files.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
